Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.


Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login


Community pharmacy

The PSNC needs to be more transparent with other pharmacy players

By not consulting with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and Pharmacy Voice on its counterproposals to the government’s funding cuts, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee has dissipated the pharmacy sector’s united front against the plans.

It would not be an overstatement to say that community pharmacy is going through some difficult times. In December 2015, out of the blue, the government announced its intention to cut £170m from the pharmacy budget, with little evidence or explanation to support its proposals. Now in May 2016, it has shaved a hefty £48m in the latest category M clawback.

In the immediate aftermath of the government’s first announcement, various organisations representing and supporting community pharmacy appeared to come together and present a united front against the proposed cuts. This was a welcome move since pharmacy has always been a somewhat fragmented sector when it comes to representing itself to government.

There is Pharmacy Voice, an England-based trade organisation that advocates for three member associations (the Company Chemists Association, the National Pharmacy Association and the Association of Independent Multiple Pharmacies), which represents nearly all the community pharmacy businesses in the UK; the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS), which is the professional body for pharmacists; and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC), which represents NHS pharmacy contractors and is arguably the most influential when it comes to contractual matters and the commissioning of NHS services.

In April 2016, the PSNC issued what it called its “counter proposals”, claiming they could lead to savings worth at least as much as the government’s proposed cuts to pharmacy funding.

The PSNC makes some solid recommendations to boost efficiencies and reduce waste, including a “not dispensed” scheme, where pharmacists are paid for checking whether patients need all items on a prescription; generic substitution; and therapeutic substitution, whereby pharmacists would recommend alternative products to prescribers. There is also a recommendation for pharmacists to identify excess prescribing in care homes through regular reviews, and another where community pharmacy could offer an emergency supply service to take pressure off out-of-hours services.

These are all worthy ideas, but the PSNC did not share them with the RPS or Pharmacy Voice before publishing them in April 2016.

Sandra Gidley, chair of the RPS English Pharmacy Board, told The Pharmaceutical Journal that the RPS had not been informed about the PSNC’s proposals and that the first they had heard of them was when they appeared on the PSNC’s website. “This is surprising because the pharmacy organisations had been working more closely and have been in regular contact,” she says.

Rob Darracott, chief executive of Pharmacy Voice, also only learnt about the proposals the day they were published on the PSNC’s website.

In response, a PSNC spokesperson said the counterproposals were put to the NHS as part of its confidential negotiations. He insisted the PSNC had been in contact with all pharmacy organisations to share “whatever information we have been able to” via the steering and communications groups.

The PSNC should have shared and sought feedback on its counterproposals with other pharmacy bodies before going public with them. This episode highlights the lack of unity in the pharmacy sector and it is clear that the cuts are not just a contractual issue.

The main pharmacy bodies should have responded jointly at this critical juncture. A single announcement signed by all pharmacy bodies spelling out what the sector can offer and how the savings could be made would have had greater impact. And there is a danger that the government will take advantage of a fragmented response to its proposals.

The contract negotiation process run by the PSNC, with its lack of transparency, is ripe for open discussion.

“I have long had reservations about the negotiation process,” says Gidley. “These are epitomised by the problem with the 2015 announcement of the national influenza vaccination service and the ensuing mad dash to ensure that proper standards and advice were in place.”

Darracott would not speculate on whether the PSNC mechanism is fit for purpose. “What I have said would be helpful, in our view, is an agreed future for the sector, which the negotiations can be set against.”

Considering the sector is reeling from the proposed cuts, now is a good time to ask whether the PSNC fully and optimally represents community pharmacy to the government. A sizeable proportion of the profession are not pharmacy contractors; and to a large degree it will be pharmacist employees providing these important clinical services to patients in the NHS in years to come.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2016.20201184

Readers' comments (4)

  • PSNC not fit for purpose.

    Totally agree with above article.

    Say no to ... Undisclosed PSNCs proposals ....
    Almost suicidal for sector

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Graham Phillips

    PSNC is a total disaster. Colleagues please wake up and smell the coffee before PSNC leads us all lemming-like over the cliff

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The PSNC comprises of a broad range of pharmacy contractors and employers. To suggest that they are acting against themselves is a little bit difficult for me to believe. The context of the conditions in which they are negotiating with the NHS, an organisation that itself is complete turmoil with very little leadership, must be taken into consideration. This must make nailing a blancmange to the wall seem like a simple task. Of course, it is very easy to mudsling from the outside and in a way, I sympathise with your viewpoint. I am a contractor myself with three branches and, whilst I view the impending cuts as being incredibly challenging, I feel that as a profession we have to show what we can offer. Much of our evidence is anecdotal, but even the data that can be quantified, such as numbers of MUR and NMS services, show that we still aren't chasing the funding that we are entitled to. in 2014-15, there was £40m in unclaimed MUR funding (the mean number of MUR's completed per pharmacy was 292) and £140m in unclaimed NMS fees. That combined number of £180m seems mighty close to the original proposed cut level to me.

    "A sizeable proportion of the profession are not pharmacy contractors; and to a large degree it will be pharmacist employees providing these important clinical services to patients in the NHS in years to come."

    Yes, this is true. However, with fewer contractors, there will be fewer pharmacist employees.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What we need to do is roll the PSNC into the RPS, and allow the RPS to become a union representative body for pharmacy. This will then give it the teeth it needs when commenting on and potentially negotiating contracts.

    Whilst the RPS wishes to remain a purely professional body, it's important to remember that other professions' royal colleges all have union responsibilities.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Supplementary images

  • Magnifying glass

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.